Re: Identity modelling

"dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message news:1125591358.016115.282670_at_g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Marshall Spight wrote:
> > David Cressey wrote:
> > > "Marshall Spight" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > The fact that Roy wanted to know the context is interesting. If I
were
> > > asking the question, "is this URL in Google's master list"? Then it
would
> > > indeed be a key.
> > >
> > > My question was really about the relationship between the URL and the
> > > resource. And I agree with you that this relationship is a pointer.
> > >
> > > Therefore the web should exhibit the drawbacks of designing based on a
> > > pointer driven model. And it does, IMO.
>
> Would you enumerate? I see it as a key-value approach or as a logical
> di-graph and it has issues such as "foreign keys" that refer to missing
> data (the key-value pair with that key is missing). When someone
> changes a URL, that does not change the sites pointing to it. However,
> this is very related to the cross-organizational, world-wide, nature of
> the web too. Can you think of a relational implementation of this
> highly distributed database that would be as successful?

Let's look at this relation At(URL, Content) with URL the primary key. The domain Content is a simple (atomic) one or not ? If is not, then we need to normalize the relation.

Let's suppose that the relation Link(URL, Desc, URL) is part of the model. Are these two relations bidirectional ?

It is possible to implement a "highly distributed database" with the bidirectional Link relation ?
Would this database solve the problems of dead links ? Received on Fri Sep 02 2005 - 09:29:37 CEST